discussitlive 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (236) comment rss

  • On the post: In Final Act Of Mindless Megadeal Stupidity, Warner Bros. Discovery Execs Kill The HBO Brand

    discussitlive ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2023 @ 09:10pm

    Name Changing

    I honestly though they were doing it so that the poor reputation they obtained for themselves would be "forgotten". Works for politicians. Wait 2 years, no one remembers. (Almost no one)

  • On the post: Arkansas: No Need To Age Verify Kids Working In Meat Processing Plants, But We Must Age Verify Kids Online

    discussitlive ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2023 @ 11:52pm

    censoring the internet

    Noodles, "censoring the internet" is, as a good friend of the family used to say, "Grabbing the pig by the wrong leg." What many miss and you cogently point out, censoring something like the internet is sweeping the beach of sand. Won't work Mc Gee! I've said for many years that a reasonable compromise is to censor the child's device. How many kids can afford a computer, iPhone, tablet, ect? And if they can, they are an edge case - the policy of perfect is the enemy of "good enough". Instead of demanding the Internet babysit other people's children, simply ask politely that websites with age restricted content use an X-AGE header in their web or app server, and a slight modification to the app or web browser to look for that, and give 'em a web page with a message from the parent. Lock the browser when the parent configures it for the child. True, does nothing for Yall'queda, but then again, are they going after children? Teens yes, we know they do that, but not little kids. So what if they figure a way around it? It isn't as if a baby has never seen a bare breast and the rest is a mystery until puberty at worst, and at best, well, they are going to need cyber skills even more in the future than are needed currently. Most adult sites would love this. Children on their sites use stolen credit cards, which leads to charge backs, which leads to getting their credit card merchant account terminated and the company blacklisted. Someone pointed out this solution makes too much sense, because people wanting to censor the internet "for the children!" aren't doing it for the children, but to assuage their own puritan desire to control other people.

  • On the post: Arkansas: No Need To Age Verify Kids Working In Meat Processing Plants, But We Must Age Verify Kids Online

    discussitlive ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2023 @ 03:00pm

    Bennett "Logic"

    Some of those 102 children were in AK meaning…most weren’t? I would think that any rational human would be horrified at even one child is working in a meat packing plant with the full knowledge of the people that hire them and the people that are supposed to be enforcing child labor laws. Are you... well, human? You’re trying to conflate two unrelated things No, if we were speaking of how our cat likes to play with yarn and how Degas used perspective and coloration in his work, that would be unrelated. Here - we are speaking of hazards to children, and how you clutch your pearls over porn, but are perfectly fine with making them work in a meat packing plant or getting married at 15. Out of curiosity, have you ever stepped one foot into a meat packing plant in your life? I have. It's not an environment children should be sight seeing in let alone working in. Depending on the plant, they use either a 410 shotgun, a captive bolt, or 480 volts to kill the cattle. All have a record for unintended homicide of people, sometimes accidental, sometimes in a fight. BTW, MSM barely ever reports on this anymore (“it’s racist!”) but it’s nearly guaranteed that a good chunk of the children were illegal immigrants - OK, now we see your base response. Only some children are human and worth protecting. Thank you for clearing that up. Before this point, I was merely irritated with your ability to be stupid and turn any point into a molehill or mountain, which ever way your prejudices moved you. Now I'm thoroughly disgusted with you. But have hope, I'm sure your mother doesn't think as poorly of you as you just showed you deserve. DISGUSTING!

  • On the post: Another Day, Another Blatant Attack On The 1st Amendment From The Florida GOP

    discussitlive ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2023 @ 03:52am

    Matthew M Bennett - imaginary arguements

    And no, it wasn’t “$25k” and nothing was confirmed there you’re just making shit up. The companies Sandmann sued are publicly traded. They are required to make SEC filings, one, called a 10Q. In those filings, available to the general public no less, are most broadly discussed tiny, irrelevant things like, oh, ownership changes or significant obstacles to future operations. Now, they may not discuss the specific reason of a down side, but it will be discussed, even if only in circumlocutions. If Sandmann had won anything significant, there would have to be ownership changes recorded and/or issues reported if for no other reason than to generate cash to satisfy the judgement or the risk assessment requirements of the SEC. Well, that didn't happen. Therefore the settlements were, as is common, nuisance settlements. EG: "Here's a nickle kid, now go pound sand." Interesting factoid: A multi-national I worked for in the late 1970's would settle any suit under $50,000 simply because it would cost more than that to fight it. After about the forth time someone dipped that well, they'd spring into action and fight. NB: $50,000 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $385,000 today. So, as has been observed by Sandmann's own representative, he only got $25K, then the nuisance was obviously judged to be quite minor. Really, Mr. Bennett, if you're going to call Mr. Masnick an idiot, we're going to insist on your Bar Association number.

  • On the post: FCC ‘Investigating’ Repeated Broadband Industry Coverage Lies

    discussitlive ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2023 @ 03:23am

    If we had a FCC wish list, what would it look like?

    Here's mine, what am I missing or mistaken about?

    1. One Touch Make Ready
    2. Forbid HOA, other community control group to sign exclusivity deals with telecom providers and such deals in place are sunset in 1 year if the installation was not 100% at the provider's expense. Include "package deals" cable likes to offer apartment complexes. (Providers almost never pay for the infrastructure, they almost always require the general contractor to do so at build. The cost is, of course, passed on.)
    3. State, county, regional, and local government is forbidden from preventing open competition. (EG: No more cable and telephone monopoly)
    4. Any cell/consumer mobile frequency allocations not utilized by at least 35% average over a 365 day period are returned to the FCC for auction. EG: Incumbent's can't purchase spectrum simply to keep a barrier to entry anymore.
    5. Repeal of all eminent domain rules that allow for taking infrastructure without consent.
    A peek at municipal radio systems needs to take place, I'm missing why this market is dominated by Motorola. I know that other's quality exceeds Motorola as of about 20 years ago, but I almost never see those competitors in the wild. Help me out here - I know I'm missing things.

  • On the post: More States Get Dumb, Introduce Laws Requiring ID Verification To Access Porn

    discussitlive ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2023 @ 09:02pm

    (O)riginal (E)quipment (M)anufacturer, EG: The Creator or evolution if preferred. Sorry, my family is chock full of either lawyers, teachers, or engineers, and only the engineers get my humor. The others used to insist I use the full name before the acronym, but sadly, age and "it's just him - ignore him." have set in. And I'm pretty much the last of the Mohicans as far as the engineers go.

  • On the post: Cops Talk Council Member Into Changing Her Mind On ShotSpotter With Data That Doesn’t Actually Show It’s Worth Paying For

    discussitlive ( profile ), 25 Feb, 2023 @ 04:06am

    "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” "Between evil and stupid, take evil. Because stupid, my friend, is all the time, but Evil only gets uppity now and again and is usually predictable."

  • On the post: Cops Talk Council Member Into Changing Her Mind On ShotSpotter With Data That Doesn’t Actually Show It’s Worth Paying For

    discussitlive ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2023 @ 10:19pm

    More magic computer pixie dust

    Several communities not part of the City of San Antonio had ponds were water fowl would land and congregate. In some of those areas, propane devices were installed to, at irregular intervals, release a quantity of propane, igniting it, and making a "BOOM!". 3 guesses as what could possibly go wrong there and how long it took PD to ignore Shot Spotter reports for a mile around that area.

  • On the post: More States Get Dumb, Introduce Laws Requiring ID Verification To Access Porn

    discussitlive ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2023 @ 04:25pm

    If dipictions and descriptions of the human body offend you....

    Speak to the OEM about it. Then ask why there's a whole raft of porn in His/Her/It's book.

  • On the post: ‘Spellbreak’ Developer Gets It Exactly Right In ‘Shutting Down’ Its Game

    discussitlive ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2023 @ 12:36am

    On code

    I encourage my mentees to keep a CVS (Concurrent Versions System) repository, and a executor with the password, or leave the password with their attorney for anything they write that isn't a work for hire. Anything that is a work for hire, the employer should have a system for that. If you remember the old SCO V Linux cases, Novel basically set up a RS-6000 with the CVS of Xenix/OpenServer on it. I heard they never got that system back. It was one of the mid-range of the mid-range systems IBM sold at the time.

  • On the post: I Explained To A Court How California’s ‘Kid’s Code’ Is Both Impossible To Comply With & An Attack On Our Expression

    discussitlive ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2023 @ 09:45pm

    I suspect the real Intent is to remove adult content from the Internet. The Kama Sutra predates Christianity. I somehow doubt at this late date we can keep "sexy" things from anyone anywhere. Heck, they can't even keep it out of prisons. "What worm hath devour'd thy brain entire?" is a quote I'd throw at 'em.

  • On the post: I Explained To A Court How California’s ‘Kid’s Code’ Is Both Impossible To Comply With & An Attack On Our Expression

    discussitlive ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2023 @ 09:36pm

    As I've stated before, I am an IT professional, not an attorney and try to do computer and let attorneys do law. I will say that most(? perhaps all?) laws use the words "publish" rather than "create" or "write", and the typical legal fiction I see is that a web visit is considered "publishing" it again.

  • On the post: I Explained To A Court How California’s ‘Kid’s Code’ Is Both Impossible To Comply With & An Attack On Our Expression

    discussitlive ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2023 @ 04:14pm

    Oh, for CRYING OUT LOUD ALREADY!

    This whole age verification thing is entirely backwards. Instead of sites having to determine if someone is "Old Enough", have that person's account on a computer/phone/tablet locked. After all, I don't know too many 14 year olds that can afford their own $1,000.00 Apple iPhone, mommy or daddy bought it for them. Make part of the set up ask "User's birth date" and if under 18, lock it so only the parents can change it. A browser change would be needed however, to detect an X-AGE header added to websites and enforce an age limitation. This would be a trivial change, about 10 minutes. To check this on your own Apache web server: As the superuser: a2enmod headers edit the web server config (/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/whatever your config file is called) and add Header set X-AGE "14" Problem freaking solved and we don't have to work as your free baby sitter because you're too lazy to raise your own children. If a site doesn't post a age limit that's an issue for them to be held accountable for. Enforcing that age limit should be the responsibility of a parent, not random strangers on the Internet.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    discussitlive ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2023 @ 05:34pm

    I, and many of the professionals I speak to, are or have been tasked to shut down comments upon command of management, who are waiting for the attorneys to tell them if they expose them to unlimited liability or not. There's a program for the things I'm responsible to to do just that, with instructions for all shifts and devops on execution. (Basically, type in the program, insert 2FA passwords from inside the protected admin network, done. Comment section no longer available to any but IT and Legal.)

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    discussitlive ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 03:50pm

    For one thing I don’t think that’s a good social policy Fine. Set up your own social media web site and stop trying to give away private property that doesn't belong to you. Twitter and Facebook are not the government, and have zero duty to your first amendment rights. What you are missing, I think somewhat disingenuously, is that is doesn't matter if someone's opinion was right or wrong - it's not his ball, not his bat, and not his back yard. He's free to go buy his own of each. No one is preventing him from doing so and publishing his opinion.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    discussitlive ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 03:19pm

    Matthew M Bennett - rebuttal

    I just want everyone to admit overly aggressive “moderation” (censorship) particularly when it bans (or suppresses) entire categories of thought is most definitely “editorializing” and therefore makes you responsible for that speech. So, if I want to talk about the best way to caramelize meat and why the Maillard reaction is a wonderful culinary delight on a vegan web page, I shouldn't have that comment removed? Even when I can simply change the venue and make it appropriate elsewhere? Or God forbid, spend 3 bucks on a domain name for a year and post it somewhere? (not an easy line to draw, so basically I think if you’re doing anything beyond banning porn and gore you’re editorializing”)

    1. The SCotUS couldn't define porn years ago and I doubt it's gotten any easier since. But I am an IT professional, I make it policy to never tell attorneys how to law as long as they don't try to tell me how to compute. It is usually an easy detente.
    2. I've managed Terms of Service compliance (along with my other duties) for 16 years. I've seen things that disgust me to this day, 10 years after I stopped doing it. One was a medical site depicting a procedure. Simply because something is disgusting or "gory" is no reason to prohibit it. That's like saying I can't eat steak because a baby can't. Please stop demanding the internet be your babysitter - it's your job to raise your kids, not mine.
    Like you can do that, it’s legal, but now you’re effectively responsible for that speech, cuz your whole viewpoint is declaring a view (such as all vaccines work all the time so Trust The Science) that make not actually be true. To mis-quote Frank Poole from 2001, A Space Odyssey, "My GOD! It's FULL of Bullshit!" Oversimplification and generalization of a situation isn't a winning strategy. Saying something always works is as asinine as saying the COVID vaccine will turn your testicles square and makes keys stick to you. Jay Bhattacharya should be able to sue FB and Twitter for libel is what I’m saying. Well, thank God he can't sue people for other people being stupid in front of his house on a public side walk or our homeowner's policies would be hella expensive. That said, and again, he's free to publish in whatever fora he cares to pay for. Sorry, no one gets a free ride on servers they don't pay for, using software they didn't write, for bandwidth that isn't theirs absent the person who DID pay for it, write it, and so on permits it. It is not the case that Twitter prevented him from saying it - they simply said "You can't say that HERE." Private property isn't a concept I would expect an attorney to have difficulty to understand.

  • On the post: Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet

    discussitlive ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 12:29pm

    But! But! But! IT HAS THE MAGIC "WITH A COMPUTER" PIXIE DUST ALL OVER IT! So It Must Be Bad/Patentable/Different!

  • On the post: Extraordinarily Confused Congressional Rep. Thinks Social Media Companies Are Secretly Communicating With Gov’t Censors… Via Jira

    discussitlive ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2023 @ 09:45am

    … and the executives of Atlassian shrugged. Wow. Neat trick. Not ever seen them that active, ever.

  • On the post: Extraordinarily Confused Congressional Rep. Thinks Social Media Companies Are Secretly Communicating With Gov’t Censors… Via Jira

    discussitlive ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2023 @ 09:37am

    How do you play a game like that? With brass knuckles?

  • On the post: Once Again, I See This Bad Internet Bill From Senators Manchin & Cornyn, And So I’m Saying Something

    discussitlive ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2023 @ 11:02am

    Attacking supply side again

    Silly Congress. When will you learn that attacking the supply won't do much? You have to do something about the demand. If you don't stop the addiction cycle then nothing you do will appreciably stop the drugs.

Next >>